Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 29

Thread: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

  1. #1
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    There is a branch of eminent domain law that states confiscation of private property during a War to further the success of victory does not have to be compensated by the government due to "fortunes of war".

    How is this different from when Communists in Soviet Union confiscated private property during a Civil War?

  2. #2
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    It was a controversial deal, but the difference is, in the U.S. we have a working Constitution, and checks and balances in government. That doesn't mean everything will turn out perfect. It does mean that it's still a government of the people.

    I don't know what even you're talking about in the Soviet Union, but where there's a totalitarian goverment (whether you claim to be communist, or capitalist, or the second coming), then you have totalitarian rule, not democracy. Unlike in the U.S. there's no appeal, only rule by a despot.

  3. #3
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    I am talking about Russian Civil war in the 1920s when the new government confiscated private lands and food to help feed the people. Everyone said that was outrageous but American law allows that.

  4. #4
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    American law has eminent domain, but it has to have a basis grounded in law--not just because someone decided it would be a good thing. And yes, people say it is outrageous here too. There was a great hue and cry over Kela v. Lambert (?) recently. And if you own this property that's going to be confiscated and you don't like what's going on, you have redress in the courts.

  5. #5
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Not when there is WAR ON AMERICAN LAND. When there is war there is no redress whatsoever, and no compensation.

  6. #6
    Olympic Champ RYou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,376

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Quote Originally Posted by Big View Post
    Not when there is WAR ON AMERICAN LAND. When there is war there is no redress whatsoever, and no compensation.
    Big your talking about a time history 140 years past. Yes the government has this right to seize property, but when finished it can be returned, though there is no obligation to do so. The law was enacted as eminent domain back in the 1700's.

    Many plantations in the south were siezed for housing but the once the troops left the area the home was returned to the owner. The only incidence I know of where the home was not returned - the Robert E Lee family farm on the Potomac. When he decided to join the CSA, the Army siezed his home and it became a headquarters during the war. It was never returned to Lee. Eventually it has become a historic property and museum maintained by the federal goverment under the department of the interior.

    Today, emminent domain is riddled with political abuse in virtually every state in the union.

    Case in point - a gentlemen purchased a lot back in the 70s with hopes of one day building his home. Well he couold never afford to so. The town affected emminent dowmain and tried to take the property so they could sell it to a developer - to build a home.

    On the other hand, the same town pays a commerical lot owner $5mil over the market value for a piece of property with an abandoned building on it with the intent of building a new school. The deal was done without any public hearing.

    The law is currently grounded in political abuse.

    Should there be another war in US soil you will see the governemtn take over buildings however, you will also see those properties returned to the owner.

  7. #7
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    The fact is should property be damaged during war, or used up, compensation is not required.

  8. #8

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Quote Originally Posted by RYou View Post
    It was never returned to Lee. Eventually it has become a historic property and museum maintained by the federal goverment under the department of the interior
    Yeah but that was intended as a slap in the face to General Lee. Typical yankee to try to make it sound all glorious.

    Also, while the plantations were returned to the owners once the War of Northern Aggression was over, those that had been occupied by the damn Yankees were frequently defiled, burned, crops ruined, etc.



    (sorry, couldn't resist)
    Super 32 Challenge - October 26-27, 2013

    "Good things happen when you wrestle for a full seven minutes." -- Jayson Ness, post-finals press conference

  9. #9

    Default Re: American law supports property confiscation during Civil War without compensation

    Big could you provide a reference to that law. I would like to see what all it says.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •